Instead of all people reacting furiously,
It's the third time or so in a couple of months I have to 'defend' those projects. And looking up the history would have revealed that the last commits weren't that long ago, and that the projects compiled up to two days ago. I also didn't see the point of why releases have to be disabled or code that compiles and at least does something has to be moved.
why not take a step back and see why we actually have these projects?
At the very least they were examples that people could check out and take a look at.
The contrib-data projects seemed dead to me. Consider me mistaken in that regard.
Fair enough.
In my defense: - the projects didn't have a release since 2005 - there are no wiki pages for the projects - there is an actively maintained external project with similar scope
But the basic thing, the code, is at least maintained for API updates. With the last updates a couple of weeks ago.
I don't want them removed as you state you are maintaining them, but I would like there to be some form of documentation or other form of information as to the purpose and intent of these projects. Having a downloadable release on sf.net that is obsolete (wicket 1.0? based) seems worse than not having them available and the projects only accessible from svn as that seems to be the intent of the projects.
It's 1.0 based as the version implies. If that isn't clear, then we could look at that further.
As hibernate is lgpl, this project would never (read: until legal@ decides otherwise) be acceptable in core.
Those projects were started long time before Apache even came in sight, and there are Apache projects that have Hibernate as a dependency. But it's not relevant as I never intended those projects to go beyond the scope of simple wicket-stuff projects to start with. Eelco
